Neonatal outcome and birth defects in 2,821 singletons born following minimal ovarian stimulation and fresh cleavage versus vitrified blastocyst single embryo transfer

Abstract

ObjectiveTo compare neonatal outcome between children born after fresh cleavage-stage single embryo transfer (f-SET) versus vitrified-warmed single blastocyst transfer(c-SBT).DesignRetrospective cohort study.Materials and Methods2821 delivered singletons (1,000 after f-SET and 1,821 after c-SBT) following 10,690 single-embryo transfers (5404 f-SET group and 5,286 c-SBT group) performed from January to December 2010 were evaluated retrospectively. Patients underwent minimal ovarian stimulation/natural cycle IVF. Outcome measures were gestational age at delivery, birth weight, birth length, sex, perinatal birth defects, low birth weight (LBW), perinatal mortality and minor/major birth defects (evaluated by parent questionnaire). This study was approved by the clinic's independent Institutional Review Board. Written patient consent for this study was provided.ResultsGestational age (39.1±1.9 versus 39.0±1.9 weeks) and preterm delivery rate (6.8% versus 6.7%) in singletons born after f-SET were comparable to those born after c-SBT. Children born after c-SBT had a higher birth weight (3042.6±462.5 versus 2966.9±470.0g, p<0.01), but LBW rates (9.3 versus 10.8%) was not significantly different. Total birth defect rates (2.8 versus 2.1%), stillbirth rates (0.1 versus 0.3%), and perinatal mortality rates (0.2 versus 0.4%) were comparable between two groups.ConclusionVitrification of blastocysts did not increase the incidence of adverse neonatal outcomes or birth defects following SET. ObjectiveTo compare neonatal outcome between children born after fresh cleavage-stage single embryo transfer (f-SET) versus vitrified-warmed single blastocyst transfer(c-SBT). To compare neonatal outcome between children born after fresh cleavage-stage single embryo transfer (f-SET) versus vitrified-warmed single blastocyst transfer(c-SBT). DesignRetrospective cohort study. Retrospective cohort study. Materials and Methods2821 delivered singletons (1,000 after f-SET and 1,821 after c-SBT) following 10,690 single-embryo transfers (5404 f-SET group and 5,286 c-SBT group) performed from January to December 2010 were evaluated retrospectively. Patients underwent minimal ovarian stimulation/natural cycle IVF. Outcome measures were gestational age at delivery, birth weight, birth length, sex, perinatal birth defects, low birth weight (LBW), perinatal mortality and minor/major birth defects (evaluated by parent questionnaire). This study was approved by the clinic's independent Institutional Review Board. Written patient consent for this study was provided. 2821 delivered singletons (1,000 after f-SET and 1,821 after c-SBT) following 10,690 single-embryo transfers (5404 f-SET group and 5,286 c-SBT group) performed from January to December 2010 were evaluated retrospectively. Patients underwent minimal ovarian stimulation/natural cycle IVF. Outcome measures were gestational age at delivery, birth weight, birth length, sex, perinatal birth defects, low birth weight (LBW), perinatal mortality and minor/major birth defects (evaluated by parent questionnaire). This study was approved by the clinic's independent Institutional Review Board. Written patient consent for this study was provided. ResultsGestational age (39.1±1.9 versus 39.0±1.9 weeks) and preterm delivery rate (6.8% versus 6.7%) in singletons born after f-SET were comparable to those born after c-SBT. Children born after c-SBT had a higher birth weight (3042.6±462.5 versus 2966.9±470.0g, p<0.01), but LBW rates (9.3 versus 10.8%) was not significantly different. Total birth defect rates (2.8 versus 2.1%), stillbirth rates (0.1 versus 0.3%), and perinatal mortality rates (0.2 versus 0.4%) were comparable between two groups. Gestational age (39.1±1.9 versus 39.0±1.9 weeks) and preterm delivery rate (6.8% versus 6.7%) in singletons born after f-SET were comparable to those born after c-SBT. Children born after c-SBT had a higher birth weight (3042.6±462.5 versus 2966.9±470.0g, p<0.01), but LBW rates (9.3 versus 10.8%) was not significantly different. Total birth defect rates (2.8 versus 2.1%), stillbirth rates (0.1 versus 0.3%), and perinatal mortality rates (0.2 versus 0.4%) were comparable between two groups. ConclusionVitrification of blastocysts did not increase the incidence of adverse neonatal outcomes or birth defects following SET. Vitrification of blastocysts did not increase the incidence of adverse neonatal outcomes or birth defects following SET.